Pakistan:Editing policy
The Pakistan Wikia is principally the product of several editors' contributions. Each has brought something different to the table: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, tidbits of information, or, most importantly, a willingness to help. Even the best article should not be considered complete; each new editor offers new insights about how to further enhance our content. Adding information to the Pakistan Wiki Editors are encouraged to add information to this wiki, either by creating a new article where one does not exist or by adding missing information to existing articles. However, it is part of policy that information in the Wiki needs to be verifiable/sourced and not just an "original invention." We demonstrate that information is verifiable and not original through citation of reliable sources. Editors need to be aware that unsourced information might be challenged and, if no source can be provided, might be removed. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide a reference, usually in a full separate sources section at the bottom of the page, at the time the information is added. Another way editors can add information to an article is by finding a source for existing unsourced material. This is especially true if you come across statements that are potentially controversial. You do not need to be the person who added the information to add a source and citation for it. Dealing with problems Pakistan Wiki is a work in progress; perfection is not required Perfection is not required: the Pakistan Wiki is a work in progress. It is wonderful when someone adds a comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written article. However, one of the great advantages of wikis is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can, over time, evolve into masterpieces through collaborative editing. A wiki is a reference work, but it is also perpetually a work in progress. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcomed. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. Try to fix problems; preserve information Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't. Try to preserve information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wiki articles can come from a succession of editors building upon each others' efforts, much as Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants." Instead of removing text, consider: *rephrasing *correcting the inaccuracy while keeping the content *moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) *adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced *requesting a citation through a short message at the article's talk/discussion page *adding appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections Handling problematic material Though many problems can be fixed without removal, in certain cases you may remove problematic material, at least temporarily. For example, material that is found to be contradicting the parameters of genuine editing can be removed. At times material that has some potential value is so poorly written that it is unlikely to be improved any time soon; in such cases, you can transfer the material to the article's talk page, where it can be improved at leisure. Note, however, that editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to fix the problem first. If there is a dispute, do not repeatedly revert each other (that is, do not edit war), but discuss the problem on the article talk page and try to reach consensus. Examples include: * Original invention; * Patent nonsense or vandalism; * Prohibited or inappropriate external links; * Factual claims that cannot be verified. Talking and editing Be bold:edit Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes - nobody owns articles. In fact, some Wikians may think you should not wait at all— simply change an article immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion is only needed if someone voices disagreement. A different viewpoint is that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time, minor tweaks should be accepted. In this view, whether to edit radically or not will depend on the context. For example, some editors suggest a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle can sometimes help move forward an unproductive discussion; but such boldness should be aimed at improving discussion, not at imposing edits against existing consensus. Remember that being bold doesn't mean ignoring the core Wiki content policies. The wiki must have a neutral point of view, which means that we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. And it means whenever possible citing sources which are verifiable and reliable. Be helpful: explain Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. For smaller changes, use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to explain the edit - in this case leave a note on the article's talk page. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring. If you think a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, you can just go ahead and do that. Preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. (For larger changes, it may be more convenient to use the page history to find the URL of the old version before your changes, and provide a link to this on the article talk page.) Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so noting that you removed this and saying why will make it less likely that the mistake will be made again in the future. Be cautious with major changes: discuss Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (eg User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page. But: Pakistan Wiki is not a discussion forum Whether you decide to edit very boldly or discuss carefully on the talk page first, please bear in mind that this Wiki is not a discussion forum. A Wiki can be a very energetic place, and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies etc. This is discussed further at Pakistan:Etiquette. Category:Policy